a bit sensitive, aren't we. I believe your argument, that you are a theoretical physicist, is an appeal to authority. Classic argument but one not borne out by any proof from you.

At least I have a theory, not necessarily mine, but one which is borne out by experimentation. We are still awaiting proof of the time shift created by your clock, BTW, and a handy explanation of how with one clock and no adjustments you correct time shifts from recordings made over century apart.

Now as I said before, a lucid explanation,ought to garner you a Nobel Prize.

Somehow I doubt if that will occur.

At any rate, attempting to get any lucid explanation from you is pretty impossible. so in the future I believe I will ignore your posts unless you really have a contribution to make. Trying to forward the science from a guy who can only claim to be a rocket scientist and a theoretical physicist and has nothing else to contribute is a waste of my time, and mind you, that's coming from a dummy blue collar worker.

In Reply to: RE: My, my posted by unclestu on May 22, 2011 at 21:15:18

The accusation of Appeal to Authority is not very relevant when the person making the claim actually is knowledgeable or perhaps considered an expert in the area under discussion. Of course, even experts in a given field can disagree, that's why arguments can sometimes go on forever. A more accurate example of Appeal to Authority would be if Arthur C. Clarke, an expert on satellite communications, offered his explanation for why birds migrate. See the difference?

While you were apparently sleeping I published the explanation for how the clock works last year on my web site. What, you haven't read it?! A Nobel Prize sounds yummy. And, yes, the explanation accounts for records produced 100 years ago.

"Trying to forward the science from a guy who can only claim to be a rocket scientist and a theoretical physicist and has nothing else to contribute is a waste of my time, and mind you, that's coming from a dummy blue collar worker."